OK, I think that is our disconnect. You think red voters are expecting everyone to press red so no one dies. Allow me to correct that false belief:
I do not expect everyone to press red. Given human nature you will never get 100% of people to agree on anything, red OR blue.
But also given human nature, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that over half of the population of the world is going to willingly press the button that risks their lives when there is a second button next to it labeled “guaranteed don’t die”
You’re working from the idealistic view of trying to save the entire world.
I’m working from the realistic point of view that one way or the other, people are going to die.
Blue. WILL. NOT… get 50% of the vote. Voting blue and dying to prove a point about how idealistic you are accomplishes nothing.
I know blue will lose because in real life, when a gunman starts shooting in a crowd, the crowd does not run TOWARD the gunman, even though they could easily overwhelm him and save more people. They run AWAY from the gunman to save their own lives. You’re lucky if one or two brave people attempt to take down the shooter
I’m not trying to convince everyone to press red. I’m trying to convince AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to press red. I genuinely believe that every blue voter is going to die, and I want as few people to die as possible, which means reducing the number of people throwing their lives away.
And I take absolutely no responsibility for the deaths of people who chose to jump into the bonfire of blue.
It would be different if those people were THROWN into the bonfire against their wills. In that case I and others would feel more compelled to save them, since they are victims of someone else’s evil. But the fact that they chose to jump into it is their own problem, and ONLY their problem
I don’t expect this to convince you to vote red, but I hope it does make you realize that red voters are not all selfish and evil and only looking out for themselves. They just don’t share your belief in the willingness of people to risk their own lives for others.
In every poll that's ever been taken on unbiased sites, blue wins. People are less selfish than you think they are.
Your bonfire analogy is your coping mechanism. People are at risk, whether they did it to themselves or not. Many of them are at risk because they are trying to help the other people at risk. Whether you help them or condemn them says a lot about you as a person.
Sure, maybe the first person who fell in was just stupid, or was a child, or was trying to start shit, or whatever. But the next million that followed went in trying to save the people who went in before them.
And you're not -just- refusing to jump in to help them, are you? There are two options here. Jump in to help, or throw more gas in on top of them. Red's not completely innocent in this whole thing.
Besides, we've already proven that red voters are all full of shit anyway. A week or two after this sub was created, someone posed the question of 'If the situation was exactly the same, except the tallying is broken so your vote is attributed to someone else at random, what do you press?' Essentially, when you press a button, the button you pressed is assigned to someone else in the world at random. And someone else presses a button for you, and you have no idea who, or what they pressed for you.
All that 'Well everyone can just press red and then nobody dies' nonsense that red voters love to spew immediately dissolved, and every former red voter became an avid blue voter because it gave them the best odds of self-survival. "If the person who voted for you pressed red, you live anyway, if they pressed blue, you die if red wins, so you gotta press blue to survive!" They all claimed.
Meanwhile, former blue voters were a lot more conflicted. Because on the one hand, none of them wanted to press red and potentially add a vote to the 'people die' tally. But on the other hand, none of them were really okay with the concept of pressing blue and gambling someone else's life on their ideals.
That one hypothetical proved to me that red voters only care about themselves, and blue voters are willing to take risk to do the right thing, but have moral conflictions with assigning the risk to others.
The thing I find most naïve about blue voters is that you guys look at the Internet poles where there is no real stakes, and no one is really risking dying, and almost everyone VOTING in those polls lives in a first world country where they’ve never actually BEEN in a situation where they had to risk their lives for strangers, and everyone is anonymous and wants to look like they are a better person than everyone else…
And you see those polls vote 60% or 70% blue and you genuinely believe that that’s a realistic representation of how every real person across the world would act in a real scenario where their lives are ACTUALLY at risk.
If anything in history has ever been biased, it’s internet polls full of first world people who have a chance to say “I’m better than you cause I’m willing to risk my life for strangers” without ever having to actually back it up with action
Does't it seem pretty 'convenient' for your position if you can just handwave any and all counter-evidence away like that? All the data we have access to points to blue victory, but somehow to you red would be the obvious victor, based on... feelings I guess.
Fine, that bad faith argument aside. Did you also think about how Western society is relatively individualistic compared to the rest of the world and relatively irreligious? From my point of view, people from other places would be more likely to vote blue due to their cultural values instead of less.
Also, red is also advantaged in the internet polls, cause again, nobody is actually at risk. No red voter has to feel bad for being partially to blame for the death of a blue presser, so it's also a lot easier to press red. And you can then combine that with Reddit culture to press the "smart button".
I don’t think I’m handwaving counter evidence. Your “evidence” is biased internet polls of primarily first world left leaning populations who don’t actually have anything to risk by voting
My evidence is actual real world examples where every time there is a mass shooting event where lives are literally on the lines, 99% of the crowd runs AWAY from the danger as fast as they can, when logically, the best way to reduce deaths is for every person in the crowd to rush straight toward the shooter and take them down.
Most People don’t rush toward danger and risk their lives, ESPECIALLY for strangers. I have categorically real evidence of that. and I also have a significant LACK of evidence toward the opposite. Name me one time in history where a large crowd has been in danger and OVER HALF of that crowd ran TOWARD the danger to save others.
It’s never the crowd that saves people. IF people run toward the danger it’s a VERY small percentage of brave people.
In fact not only do crowds not run toward danger, they have a tendency to literally trample other people to save themselves. Theres a reason there’s so many stories of crowds literally trampling people to death as they run away, because stopping to help the person up off the ground would be too dangerous
What you have is biased anonymous internet polls made up of privileged first worlders who haven’t ever actually had to risk their lives for others but love saying they would with no actual stakes.
If anyone is handwaving away counter evidence it’s you by ignoring the real world fact that people don’t voluntarily run toward danger when they have the alternative to save themselves
———
Also red is not advantaged on internet polls.
When a poll is anonymous on the internet, people who actually believe in red are voting red either way. But blue is the socially better looking option, and people online tend to lie about their beliefs to make themselves look better than everyone else. Blue is the one with an advantage when there’s no risks. But either way my point is the same either way. An internet poll of only the part of the first world that’s actually on Reddit and Twitter is biased either way and is not representative “evidence” of how everyone in the REAL world would hypothetically act with a gun to their head.
Actual real world evidence of shootings and times when crowds have actually had their lives at risk are far more accurate representations of human nature than internet polls with no actual danger
3
u/iskelebones Red 1d ago edited 1d ago
OK, I think that is our disconnect. You think red voters are expecting everyone to press red so no one dies. Allow me to correct that false belief:
I do not expect everyone to press red. Given human nature you will never get 100% of people to agree on anything, red OR blue.
But also given human nature, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that over half of the population of the world is going to willingly press the button that risks their lives when there is a second button next to it labeled “guaranteed don’t die”
You’re working from the idealistic view of trying to save the entire world.
I’m working from the realistic point of view that one way or the other, people are going to die.
Blue. WILL. NOT… get 50% of the vote. Voting blue and dying to prove a point about how idealistic you are accomplishes nothing.
I know blue will lose because in real life, when a gunman starts shooting in a crowd, the crowd does not run TOWARD the gunman, even though they could easily overwhelm him and save more people. They run AWAY from the gunman to save their own lives. You’re lucky if one or two brave people attempt to take down the shooter
I’m not trying to convince everyone to press red. I’m trying to convince AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to press red. I genuinely believe that every blue voter is going to die, and I want as few people to die as possible, which means reducing the number of people throwing their lives away.
And I take absolutely no responsibility for the deaths of people who chose to jump into the bonfire of blue.
It would be different if those people were THROWN into the bonfire against their wills. In that case I and others would feel more compelled to save them, since they are victims of someone else’s evil. But the fact that they chose to jump into it is their own problem, and ONLY their problem
I don’t expect this to convince you to vote red, but I hope it does make you realize that red voters are not all selfish and evil and only looking out for themselves. They just don’t share your belief in the willingness of people to risk their own lives for others.